Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Amenities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council examines pool, golf course and ice rink as possible cuts; staff say contracts and operations limit near‑term savings
Summary
As part of the budget review, councilors considered closing Potterfield Pool, pausing the municipal golf course and delaying ice‑rink capital work; city staff warned contractual obligations and operational realities would limit near‑term savings and that the rink replacement could cost several million dollars.
HAGERSTOWN, Md. — During the budget work session councilors discussed whether to reduce or pause several city amenities — Potterfield Pool, the municipal nine‑hole golf course and the city‑owned ice rink — as potential offsets to a proposed tax increase.
City staff provided line‑by‑line context and cautioned that those choices have contractual, operational and service consequences. For Potterfield Pool, staff cited estimated FY26 revenue near $93,500 and direct operating expenses listed in the budget book at roughly $301,000; the pool is managed under a multi‑year contract with the YMCA that covers lifeguards and most on‑site operations, staff said, and terminating or pausing the season would still create obligations tied to that contract.
On the golf course, staff said the operation has not been financially self‑supporting and relies on a mix of seasonal, part‑time and two full‑time maintenance employees. Staff noted the city is under a multi‑year lease or contract for golf carts that would remain payable even if play were suspended; preliminary comments in the session put that obligation at approximately $25,300 per year (staff characterized the figure as approximate and related to a five‑year contract).
The council also discussed the ice rink, which staff said the city owns and which is operated under a contract with the Hagerstown Ice Amateur Athletic Association (HIAAA). Staff reported that ice‑making equipment at the rink has reached the end of its useful life and that the most recent budget estimate to replace the ice‑making system was about $2.7 million; that figure did not include additional design and engineering fees and could be higher once a final scope is developed.
Department directors told councilors that closing an amenity for a single season could save some near‑term operating dollars but often would not eliminate fixed costs like equipment leases, pre‑paid contracts or the costs needed to restore an asset that was allowed to deteriorate. Parks staff noted that seasonal positions are critical to daily operations across 22 parks and roughly 300 acres; staffing shortages in recent years have forced the city to contract out some services, sometimes at higher cost than in‑house provision.
Council members recorded informal votes and preferences during the meeting: most opposed wholly eliminating Potterfield Pool and the municipal band and expressed concern about broad cuts to events that residents value. On the ice rink, council support for closure was split; two council members said they would be willing to pause the rink, while others said the rink is a valued community facility and cited the partnership arrangement and capital needs as complicating factors.
Staff emphasized that some near‑term savings could be found by delaying discretionary CIP items, renegotiating or re‑evaluating contracts where legally possible, and by targeted hiring freezes for non‑public‑safety positions. Councilors asked staff to provide clear dollar amounts, the contractual penalties associated with closing or pausing each amenity, and the social impacts (for example, summer programs for children served by the pool) so the council could weigh tradeoffs before any formal decisions.
No formal closures or contract cancellations were approved during the session; staff were directed to return estimated savings, contractual consequences and implementation timelines for any amenity reductions under consideration.
